Books by John Tillson
Bloomsbury, 2019
In Children, Religion and the Ethics of Influence, John Tillson develops a theory concerning whic... more In Children, Religion and the Ethics of Influence, John Tillson develops a theory concerning which kinds of formative influence are morally permissible, impermissible or obligatory. Applying this theory to the case of religion, he argues that religious initiation in childhood is morally impermissible whether conducted by parents, teachers or others. Tillson addresses questions such as: how we come to have the ethical responsibilities we do, how we understand religion, how ethical and religious commitments can be justified, and what makes children ethically special.
35% off with this flyer!
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bloomsbury, 2019
In Children, Religion and the Ethics of Influence, John Tillson develops a theory concerning whic... more In Children, Religion and the Ethics of Influence, John Tillson develops a theory concerning which kinds of formative
influence are morally permissible, impermissible or obligatory. Applying this theory to the case of religion, he
argues that religious initiation in childhood is morally impermissible whether conducted by parents, teachers or
others. Tillson addresses questions such as: how we come to have the ethical responsibilities we do, how we
understand religion, how ethical and religious commitments can be justified, and what makes children ethically
special.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Book Chapters by John Tillson
Handbook of Moral and Character Education 3rd edition, 2024
This chapter argues that videogames which adapt to player behaviour offer a promising and underde... more This chapter argues that videogames which adapt to player behaviour offer a promising and underdeveloped tool for moral educators. It explores ways in which so called 'Adaptive Games' can be supported by Artificial Intelligence to morally educate players. It then considers and responds to a range of moral objections that might reasonably be levelled against them.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Pedagogies of Punishment The Ethics of Discipline in Education, 2023
Many will recall frustration, from childhood and early adulthood, at being blamed by teachers for... more Many will recall frustration, from childhood and early adulthood, at being blamed by teachers for things that we witnessed them also doing. For example, a teacher might have criticised you for lashing out, wrongly, at a student, when you had seen the teacher similarly lashing out. It was right and appropriate that teachers blame students for these things. Upadhyaya and Tillson argue that despite this, it is sometimes wrong of teachers to blame students hypocritically. Indeed, interacting with students in a non-hypocritical way is part of effective education.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Pedagogies of Punishment The Ethics of Discipline in Education, 2023
In this chapter Tillson and Thompson consider what behavioural requirements schools may establis... more In this chapter Tillson and Thompson consider what behavioural requirements schools may establish for students and which (if any) they may enforce through punishment, during compulsory education. They argue that before children are autonomous, schools may establish both paternalistic, and other-regarding requirements, but not requirements imposed from within comprehensive conceptions of the good. They may punish children in order to ensure a fair distribution of the burdens and benefits of social arrangements. Schools may also punish children for paternalistic reasons, including developmental reasons, but not for reasons of general deterrence. When children become autonomous, compulsory schooling may establish only other-regarding requirements of student conduct. They may still punish to ensure a fair distribution of the burdens or benefits of social arrangements; this includes punishing for reasons of general deterrence, due to children’s responsible choices enhancing their liability, as well as for other-regarding developmental reasons.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Pedagogies of Punishment The Ethics of Discipline in Education, 2023
Thompson and Tillson introduce their co-edited volume, Pedagogies of Punishment placing it in the... more Thompson and Tillson introduce their co-edited volume, Pedagogies of Punishment placing it in the wider context of the Pedagogies of Punishment project, summarising the contributions and suggesting directions for future research.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
in Kathryn Hytten (EIC) Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education
When and why are coercion, indoctrination, manipulation, deception, and bullshit morally wrongful... more When and why are coercion, indoctrination, manipulation, deception, and bullshit morally wrongful modes of influence in the context of educating children? Answering this question requires identifying what valid claims different parties have against one another regarding how children are influenced. Most prominently among these, it requires discerning what claims children have regarding whether and how they and their peers are influenced, and against whom they have these claims. The claims they have are grounded in the weighty interests they each equally have in their wellbeing, prospective autonomy and being regarded with equal concern and respect. Plausibly children have valid claims regarding the content and means of influence they themselves are subjected to. For instance, considerations of concern and respect for children confer duties on others to enable them to know important information and develop important skills. Children also plausibly have valid claims to be free from certain means of influence including indoctrination. This is because indoctrinatory practices threaten to diminish both their capacity to reason soundly, thereby constituting a wrongful harm, and their opportunities to form judgements and choices in response to relevant evidence and reasons, thereby constituting a wrong of disrespect.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
International Handbook of Philosophy of Education (ed.) Paul Smeyers (Dordrecht: Springer, 2018) ‘RELIGIOUS EDUCATION’
The sense of religious education under discussion in this chapter will be the formative influence... more The sense of religious education under discussion in this chapter will be the formative influence of children, with respect to religions. Such influence could be anti-religious, pro-religious, or neutral about the value of religion. What I will call ‘the Basic Question’ asks ‘how ought children to be influenced with respect to religions?’ In this chapter we will assess a range of forms that question can take in different kinds of societies. We will distinguish and explore questions regarding the moral permissibility and desirability, and the legal permissibility, of various answers to the Basic Question. First however, we will consider some rival answers and approaches to the question of what counts as a religion.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Popular Press Publications by John Tillson
Philosophy Now 91:53-54., 2012
A short and humorous piece of philosophical science fiction exploring the pros and cons of extrem... more A short and humorous piece of philosophical science fiction exploring the pros and cons of extreme bodily modification, especially as they might be used in sports.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Editorial Publications by John Tillson
Theory and Research in Education, 2020
It is widely accepted that school decision makers can abuse their power to punish children or fin... more It is widely accepted that school decision makers can abuse their power to punish children or find themselves in circumstances that otherwise fall short of procedural and substantive justice. This is a source of apprehension for educators and, when punishment goes wrong, it can be a source of resentment for children and parents. While injustices are to be avoided, agreement on what treatment counts as unjust (and why that evaluation is deserved) is harder to find. Normative inquiries into such punishment require careful examination of the rights and responsibilities of teachers and the children in their charge-to say nothing of the necessity for close study of the aims of, and constraints upon, adults' potential influence over children in response to their behaviors. These issues are made even harder to resolve due to the complexities involved in, inter alia, balancing individual differences with organizational efficiency, accounting for children's evolving capacities, and serving an educational mission within non-ideal circumstances. Odd, then, that so little contemporary philosophical work in education addresses this important topic of punishment.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
What kinds of technological innovations might enable us to enhance educational outcomes, and what... more What kinds of technological innovations might enable us to enhance educational outcomes, and what price might they come at? There are at least four reasons for raising this question. Firstly, given the rate of technological progress, we should plan ahead in order to forestall the potential abuses of even the most speculative technologies, in case they materialize without our proper preparation. Secondly, such discussion might help motivate and guide further research and development, where specific desirable outcomes are identified. Thirdly, insofar as such technology is already with us, it is wise to think about its potential applications so as not to miss opportunities or misuse them. Fourthly, whilst some forms of enhancement we canvas might turn out to be physically impossible, their metaphysical possibility would still make reflecting on their desirability fruitful, as this would help us to better understand what it is that we value about education.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bajo palabra. Revista de filosofía, Jan 1, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Journal Articles by John Tillson
Journal of Philosophy of Education, 2023
John Tillson concludes the symposium on Children, Religion and the Ethics of
Influence by replyi... more John Tillson concludes the symposium on Children, Religion and the Ethics of
Influence by replying to his five respondents. The reply focuses on Michael Hand’s defense of parental rights to raise their children in their faith, Ruth Wareham’s suggestion that the value of autonomy rules out a wider range of impermissible religious influences than his own account is able to, David Lewin’s alternative criteria for ethical influence and scepticism about rationality’s objectivity, Anca Gheaus’ proposal that initiation into multiple contradictory religious faiths is permissible, and Matthew Clayton’s rejection of the book’s perfectionist political morality.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Journal of Philosophy of Education
It is morally impermissible for parents, educators, and others to initiate children into religiou... more It is morally impermissible for parents, educators, and others to initiate children into religious belief systems. That is the provocative conclusion of, Children, Religion and the Ethics of Influence-the book which is the focus of the present symposium. This introduction briefly summarises the book's arguments together with the criticisms levelled against them. The symposium includes critiques by Matthew Clayton, Anca Gheaus, Michael Hand, David Lewin, and Ruth Wareham. Clayton and Wareham propose alternative bases for prohibiting religious initiation, while Hand, Lewin and Gheaus propose conditions under which religious initiation may be permissible. The symposium concludes with a rejoinder by [Redacted]. It is widely accepted that parents are permitted to bring their children up to share their religious faith, and, only slightly less widely accepted that they may enrol them in religious
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Journal of Philosophy of Education, 2023
In a candid autobiographical chapter (2010) which numbers among his last writings, Paul Hirst sub... more In a candid autobiographical chapter (2010) which numbers among his last writings, Paul Hirst subjects his upbringing within a fundamentalist Christian sect to searching moral appraisal. He concludes that his parents wronged him by religiously indoctrinating him, stifling his emotional development, and arbitrarily restricting his range of valuable morally permissible experiences. This upbringing undermined his autonomy and, more fundamentally on his account, kept him from living the life he had most reason to live. Surprisingly, however, Hirst suggests that his parents had a right to initiate him into this conservative religious life, though the wider community owed him a more non-directive form of religious education to temper it. This is a striking concession to the scope of parental rights, especially in view of Hirst's complaint that the emotional repression required by his parents was to 'distort [his] experience and understanding of [himself] and others in ways that persisted well into [his] adult life'. Engaging with Hirst's evaluation on his upbringing, I argue for a narrower range of parental rights than Hirst-one which excludes a parental moral right to religious initiation-and provide an account of the kind of emotional experiences to which children plausibly have a right.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Educational Theory , 2022
This paper defends an approach to deciding the aims and content of public schooling from the crit... more This paper defends an approach to deciding the aims and content of public schooling from the critique of Public Reason Liberalism. The approach that it defends is an unrestricted pairing of the ‘Epistemic Criterion’ and of the ‘Momentousness Criterion’. On the Epistemic Criterion, public schooling should align students’ credence with credibility. On the Momentousness Criterion, public schooling ought to include content that it is costly for children to lack the correct view about, where they are otherwise unlikely to have it. Public Reason Liberals seek to restrict both the Epistemic and Momentousness Criteria to within a range that is acceptable to politically reasonable citizens. In response, it is argued firstly that the considerations that encourage Public Reason Liberalism instead motivate unrestricted versions of the Epistemic and Momentousness Criteria, and secondly that Public Reason Liberalism faces a dilemma: that it either entails absurd consequences or must undermine itself in addressing these.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Studies in Philosophy and Education
This brief summary of my book, Children, Religion and the Ethics of Influence, serves as the intr... more This brief summary of my book, Children, Religion and the Ethics of Influence, serves as the introduction to the present symposium, which includes commentaries by Alexander Carruth, Jane Gately, Ben Kotzee, Neil Levy and Sam Rocha, followed by my response to them.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Studies in Philosophy and Education
I am very grateful to Alex Carruth, Jane Gatley, Neil Levy, Ben Kotzee and Sam Rocha for their pe... more I am very grateful to Alex Carruth, Jane Gatley, Neil Levy, Ben Kotzee and Sam Rocha for their penetrating commentaries on different aspects of Children, Religion and the Ethics of Influence. In what follows I respond to their insightful suggestions and challenging criticisms.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Educational Theory, 2020
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Theory and Research in Education, 2020
This paper argues that UK schools' uses of exclusion often violate children's moral rights. It co... more This paper argues that UK schools' uses of exclusion often violate children's moral rights. It contends that while exclusion is not inherently incompatible with children's moral rights, current practice must be reformed to align with them. It concludes that as a non-punitive preventative measure, there may be certain circumstances in schools where it is necessary to exclude a child in order to safeguard the weighty interests of others in the school community. However, reform is needed to ensure that exclusion is a measure of last resort, unjust discrimination is eliminated, appropriate and timely alternative provision is available, cultures of listening are developed, and blanket policies are removed. The argument is framed in terms of children's weighty interests as identified in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The moral bearing of these interests on UK schools is defended, and an overview of exclusion practices commonly used in UK schools is provided. Finally, the extent to which the use of exclusion in UK schools might violate the moral rights of the child is considered by evaluating empirically informed arguments for and against such policies couched in terms of interests identified in the Convention.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Books by John Tillson
35% off with this flyer!
influence are morally permissible, impermissible or obligatory. Applying this theory to the case of religion, he
argues that religious initiation in childhood is morally impermissible whether conducted by parents, teachers or
others. Tillson addresses questions such as: how we come to have the ethical responsibilities we do, how we
understand religion, how ethical and religious commitments can be justified, and what makes children ethically
special.
Book Chapters by John Tillson
Popular Press Publications by John Tillson
Editorial Publications by John Tillson
Journal Articles by John Tillson
Influence by replying to his five respondents. The reply focuses on Michael Hand’s defense of parental rights to raise their children in their faith, Ruth Wareham’s suggestion that the value of autonomy rules out a wider range of impermissible religious influences than his own account is able to, David Lewin’s alternative criteria for ethical influence and scepticism about rationality’s objectivity, Anca Gheaus’ proposal that initiation into multiple contradictory religious faiths is permissible, and Matthew Clayton’s rejection of the book’s perfectionist political morality.
35% off with this flyer!
influence are morally permissible, impermissible or obligatory. Applying this theory to the case of religion, he
argues that religious initiation in childhood is morally impermissible whether conducted by parents, teachers or
others. Tillson addresses questions such as: how we come to have the ethical responsibilities we do, how we
understand religion, how ethical and religious commitments can be justified, and what makes children ethically
special.
Influence by replying to his five respondents. The reply focuses on Michael Hand’s defense of parental rights to raise their children in their faith, Ruth Wareham’s suggestion that the value of autonomy rules out a wider range of impermissible religious influences than his own account is able to, David Lewin’s alternative criteria for ethical influence and scepticism about rationality’s objectivity, Anca Gheaus’ proposal that initiation into multiple contradictory religious faiths is permissible, and Matthew Clayton’s rejection of the book’s perfectionist political morality.
In this paper I offer a critique of, alternately, the language and content of ‘learning from’ religion. I structure this critique around a close reading of Gareth Byrne’s concluding chapter to his and Patricia Kieran’s co-edited book, Toward Mutual Ground: Pluralism, Religious Education and Diversity in Schools. On one reading, Byrne hopes to promote deep understanding of religions through what he calls ‘learning about and from religion’. On another, he might be thought to hope that children should learn lessons about the truth of religions (albeit in a way that falls short of the initiation into a single faith). I argue that to learn about X, is to identify it as the object about which we are to learn, to learn from X is to identify it as the source from which we are to learn, and to learn X is to identify the content to be learned (or, the ‘learning outcome’). But clearly in religious education, it is important learn about religion: to be educated with respect to religion(s) would seem to be the very raison d’etre of such a subject. One might reasonably suggest that children should learn about religion(s) from religion(s), on the grounds that each religion is an authority on itself. There is no guarantee that religions are the best authorities on themselves, but it seems reasonable to suggest that particular religions should be able to speak for themselves where they are the object of learning. It can comprehensibly be urged that in something deserving of the name ‘religious education’, religion might not be the object of understanding at all, but perhaps the student, or the world in general should be. Here, religion would be the source of knowledge, shedding light on the student, and upon the world in general. However, that presupposes religions to be source of knowledge on these things, which seems too epistemically contentious to presuppose in a learning objective. On the other hand, defensible aims brought under the rubric of ‘learning about religion’, are not served well by that terminology. It is best not to understand them as supplementing the process of learning about religions with learning from religions, but as learning about religions in particular way: e.g. through personal engagement with religions, and critical reflection on their claims. I explicate the relevant sense of ‘personal engagement’ with Kierkegaard’s distinction between personal and impersonal knowledge.
In this brief discussion, I argue that we should reformulate the terms of debate surrounding which issues should be regarded as 'controversial'. I critique Hess and McAvoy’s 'politically authentic criterion' for selecting topics to be discussed open-endedly. I observe a student bias for regarding themselves as being less susceptible to teacher-influence than they take others to be, and discuss what this means for students’ judgements as a source of evidence. I then endorse their recommendation that teachers take a flexible attitude to disclosing or withholding their views in open-ended discussions, depending on pedagogical usefulness for enhancing the aims of the political classroom. Finally, I end by describing an under-discussed conundrum regarding the disclosure of teacher’s views.
I will be discussing these views this Sunday (15th March 2015) on a book panel at the Philosophy of Education Society's 71st annual meeting, in Memphis Tennessee.
Other speakers include:
Dr Eoin O'Malley of DCU Political Science
Dr Miguel De Arce of TCD Genetics
Dr Kevin Denny of UCD Behavioural Economics
Prof. Aron Bokde of Trinity Neuroscience
Veronica Walsh - Independent Cognitive Behavioural Therapist and current affairs commentator
Time: 8pm - 10pm, Tuesday 11/11/2014
Place: Robert Emmett lecture theatre (Room 2037), Arts Block, Trinity College Dublin